11–20 of 73 posts
Akbar was one of the more interesting monarchs in human history. He was quite tolerant for the time, so much so that he created his own syncretic religion that aimed to soothe tensions among his subjects.[1] He also had an official biography written, the Akbarnama , [2] which is a pretty fascinating look behind the throne of Mughal India. It includes chapters on the imperial kitchen, coins used in the empire, army en…
Wasn't the guy probably dyslexic?
Where do you come to this conclusion from? There is one line in the entire article about that: "Ellen Smart in her 1981 essay makes the case that Akbar may have been dyslexic, though there is little evidence or corroborating facts in support of this." Do you have any sources?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His creation of his own religion might be the reason that tensions still exist in that region or maybe its just people. Interestingly, he was a brilliant commander even though people call him illiterate, he preferred his own way of studying which meant understanding topics at his own pace instead of cramming. Just shows us how only education has nothing to do with being tolerant or being brilliant.
Tensions mostly exist in the region because of colonialism and the poorly-managed independence of India and subsequently of Pakistan. If, nonetheless, you wanted to pin the blame for modern religious issues in South Asia on a Mughal, it would probably be Aurangzeb, Akbar’s great-grandson, who was definitely not tolerant. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurangzeb
Neither the Islamic colonization nor the Anglo-Saxon one nor the Christian one (by Portugal etc.) was ever a 'benign' entity. White guilt over the brutalities of their ancestors does not automatically render the previous mass-murderers any better.
The scores of destroyed temples/shrines/statues all over the Indian sub-continent, and the utter lack of any ancient ones in the North of India should be evidence enough, but then again, in the prevailing age of unreason, the the race/academic pedigree of the writer has far more importance than actual archaeology or indeed historical documentation.
Akbar was one of the more interesting monarchs in human history. He was quite tolerant for the time, so much so that he created his own syncretic religion that aimed to soothe tensions among his subjects.[1] He also had an official biography written, the Akbarnama , [2] which is a pretty fascinating look behind the throne of Mughal India. It includes chapters on the imperial kitchen, coins used in the empire, army en…
what information makes you believe he was tolerant?
Akbar was one of the more interesting monarchs in human history. He was quite tolerant for the time, so much so that he created his own syncretic religion that aimed to soothe tensions among his subjects.[1] He also had an official biography written, the Akbarnama , [2] which is a pretty fascinating look behind the throne of Mughal India. It includes chapters on the imperial kitchen, coins used in the empire, army en…
[1] ’Akbar and His India’ by Irfan Habib [2] The SAGE Encyclopedia of War: Social Science Perspectives edited by Paul Joseph [3] Emperors of the Peacock Throne: The Saga of the Great Mughals By Abraham Eraly [4] Source: The Legacy of Jihad:Islamic Holy War & the Fate of Non-Muslims edited by Andrew G. Bostom
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tensions mostly exist in the region because of colonialism and the poorly-managed independence of India and subsequently of Pakistan. If, nonetheless, you wanted to pin the blame for modern religious issues in South Asia on a Mughal, it would probably be Aurangzeb, Akbar’s great-grandson, who was definitely not tolerant. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurangzeb
Stop gaslighting. Neither the Islamic colonization nor the Anglo-Saxon one nor the Christian one (by Portugal etc.) was ever a 'benign' entity. White guilt over the brutalities of their ancestors does not automatically render the previous mass-murderers any better. The scores of destroyed temples/shrines/statues all over the Indian sub-continent, and the utter lack of any ancient ones in the North of India should be…
Your narrative is also rather misleading; Islam has been in India since just after Muhammad and many early Muslims were traders, not conquering armies. "Islamic colonization" is a meaningless phrase here, as most of the "conquest" was done by Central Asian tribes with non-religious motives. It's pretty easy to draw a line from the Mongols to the Mughals (after all, Mughal is a Persian-Arabic derivation of Mongol) and the Mongols certainly weren't on a religious crusade.
Otherwise, it is an immensely complex story and situation and one-line summary rebuttals aren't exactly helpful. I'm not an expert on Indian history, but to paint it as a straightforward narrative is unquestionably false.
Akbar was one of the more interesting monarchs in human history. He was quite tolerant for the time, so much so that he created his own syncretic religion that aimed to soothe tensions among his subjects.[1] He also had an official biography written, the Akbarnama , [2] which is a pretty fascinating look behind the throne of Mughal India. It includes chapters on the imperial kitchen, coins used in the empire, army en…
Despite the hype, Akbar was not tolerant at all. Like most Muslim kings in India, he was heavy-handed towards Hindus but was also towards Shia Muslim [1]. He ordered numerous massacre of Hindus (e.g. massacre in Garha in 1560 AD[2], order to weight Janeu - a cotton thread worn by hindus - of killed Hindus which weighed 200kg [3], rewarded Abd al-Qadir Badauni with gold coins who soak his Islamic beard in Hindu infide…
> quite tolerant for the time
Compared to most contemporaries, he was certainly tolerant of pluralism. Compared to today, of course not, but that should be obvious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what information makes you believe he was tolerant?
Well, I said tolerant for the time. His entire Wikipedia article indicates a pretty serious commitment to pluralism and tolerance, especially compared to his contemporaries (and even his descendents.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar#Religious_policy
- Removing line about Wikipedia's Left and Islam leanings. I will present more details argument later on.
Wikipedia isn't a reliable source when it comes to history. Even for his time he wasn't tolerant. Let me narrate 2 stories from the same period.
When Akbar took over Chittore fort, he ordered butchering of general public (30000) and made a tower out of skulls. This event is celebrated in Mughal painting. He called himself a Gazi(slayers of infidels) after this event.[1]
Maha Rana Pratap was Akbar's great enemy who despite having a small kingdom never accepted Akbar's rule so he sent out Abdul Rahim Khane Khana to fight with Maha Rana. Rahim was travelling with his wife and daughters. Maha Rana's subordinates were able to capture his family. But when prisnors were bought in front of Maharana he ordered them to be returned with immediately without harm. This event changed Rahim so much that he became devotee of Bhagwan(Lord) Krishna and refused to fight for rest of his life.[2]
Both were from the same era. Who looks tolerant?
Akbar ordered his sisters to remain unmarried because he could digest the idea of someone getting physical with women of his family. Later this became a practice and all subsequent Mughals princess died spinsters. He demanded women from the kingdoms he conquered. His harem had 5000 women. He killed his tutor Bairam Khan and married his wife.[3]
[1] Source: Fathnama-I-Chittor, March 1568 (translated by Ishtiaq Ahmed Zilli), Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Vol. 33 (1971), pp. 350-361
[2] KS Lal's "The Mughal Harem" (1988)
[3] The Naked Mughals: Forbidden Tales of Harem and Butchery.
[2] https://mobile.twitter.com/TIinExile/status/1224292144023654...
I suspect Akbar’s “illiteracy” like the similar case of Charlemange, was probably performative. Both were representing dynasties whose people were recently considered barbarians. While being a sponsor of learning brings great prestige, being too literate can make you look soft and corrupted by decadent civilization (Chinese history has a repeated pattern of coups like this against conquering inner Asians who became t…
For what it's worth, while Persian was the court language, the Mughals retained their Turkic dialect as a household language, and Akbar was conversant in the major Hindi dialects. There is evidence that subsequent Mughals and the vast number of Mirza princelings in the Imperial household grew up speaking Hindi as their primary language with their Rajput mothers, before formal instruction in Turkic, Persian, and Arabic.